Introduction
Concept | Definition |
---|---|
Detectiona
| A measure of the minimum intensity of a sensory stimulus at which it can be perceived by an individual |
Discrimination | A measure of an individual’s ability to differentiate between a set of sensory stimuli (within the same sensory domain) |
Identification | A measure of an individual’s ability to perceive and name a sensory stimulus |
Scaling | A measure of describing the relationship between the intensity of a sensory stimulus and the intensity of an individual’s perception of this stimulus |
Methods
Search step | PubMed | PsycINFO |
---|---|---|
1 | “ADHD” | “ADHD” |
2 | “olfact* OR smell OR odor OR scent OR visual OR sight OR auditory OR aural OR acoustic OR touch OR tactile OR gustat* OR taste” | “olfact* OR smell OR odor OR scent OR visual OR sight OR auditory OR aural OR acoustic OR touch OR tactile OR gustat* OR taste” |
3 | 1 AND 2 | 1 AND 2 |
4 | Limit step 3 to language (English and German), humans and journal articles | Limit step 3 to language (English and German) and academic journals |
Inclusion criteria
Clinical diagnosis
Normal control (NC) group
Assessment of perception
Group comparisons
Results
Authors | Participants: N (female/male) | Age: M ± SD or age range (in years) | Pharmacological treatment | Test measure | Results: detection | Results: discrimination | Results: identification | Results: scaling |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Auditory perception—children/adolescents
| ||||||||
Breier et al. (2002) | 18 ADHD (13/5) | 10.9 ± 1.9 | 7 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Homemade | Detection of a 512-ms tone: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.33 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
25 NCs (10/15) | 9.9 ± 1.7 | |||||||
Breier et al. (2003) | 33 ADHD (11/22) | 9.9 ± 1.7 | 30 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Homemade | Detection of a 32-ms tone: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.32 Detection of a 512-ms tone: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.25 | Discrimination between two tones: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.41 | n.a. | n.a. |
41 NCs (15/26) | 10.3 ± 1.8 | |||||||
Geffner et al. (1996) | 27 ADHD (5/22) | 6–12 | Not reported | NU-6 test | n.a. | n.a. | Word identification: Right ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.55 Left ear: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.36 | n.a. |
15 NCs (5/10) | 6–12 | Goldman–Fristoe–Woodcock Test of Auditory Selective Attention | Word identification: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.03 | |||||
Gray et al. (2002) | 14 ADHD (6/8) | 9.6 ± 0.4 | 24-h abstinence before assessment | Homemade | Detection of a tone: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.33 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
26 NCs (10/16) | 10.7 ± 0.4 | |||||||
Lucker et al. (1996) | 28 ADHD (6/22) | 6–12 | Not reported | Hughson-Westlake approach (modified) for hearing thresholds; Descending approach; CID W-2 spondaic word list for speech recognition thresholds | Speech recognition: Right ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.87 Left ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.89 | n.a. | n.a. | Most comfortable loudness: Right ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.98 Left ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.88 Tolerance level: Right ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.06 Left ear: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.67 |
23 NCs (8/15) | 6–12 | |||||||
Söderlund and Jobs (2016) | 15 ADHD symptom groupa (0/15) | 10.1 | Not reported | Hagerman sentence test for children | Speech recognition: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.74 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
31 NCs (0/31) | 10.3 | |||||||
Auditory perception—adults
| ||||||||
Corbett and Stanczak (1999) | 27 ADHD (13/14) | 37.1 ± 13.3 | Patients with ADHD were medication free; 6 patients with ADHD reported having been treated with stimulant medication during childhood | Goldman–Fristoe–Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination | n.a. | n.a. | Word identification: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.14 | n.a. |
15 NCs (10/5) | 39.5 ± 14.9 | |||||||
Gustatory perception—children/adolescents
| ||||||||
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Gustatory perception—adults
| ||||||||
Weiland et al. (2011) | 12 ADHD (12/0) | 41 ± 8.5 | 7 patients with ADHD were on psychoactive medication (not further specified) at time of the assessment | Taste strips | n.a. | n.a. | ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.03 | Bitter taste: Patients with ADHD perceived bitter stimuli as more intense than NCs (φ = 0.53) |
12 NCs (12/0) | 32 ± 7.9 | |||||||
Olfactory perception—children/adolescents
| ||||||||
Karsz et al. (2008) | 44 ADHD (9/35) | 12.16 ± 2.19 | 11 patients with ADHD were on stimulant medication at time of the assessment | UPSIT | n.a. | n.a. | ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.01 | n.a. |
44 NCs (9/35) | 12.23 ± 2.21 | |||||||
Lorenzen et al. (2016) | 18 ADHD (0/18) | 10 ± 1.7 | 15 patients with ADHD were MPH naïve; 3 patients with ADHD received MPH for no longer than 6 months, but not within the least year | UPSIT | ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.26 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
17 NCs (0/17) | 10.5 ± 0.93 | |||||||
Romanos et al. (2008) | 20 ADHD+M (10/10) | 10.8 ± 1.6 | Study explicitly examined the effects of stimulant medication on olfactory functioning in ADHD; n = 20 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication and were on medication during the assessment, while n = 20 patients with ADHD did not take stimulant medication | Sniffin’ sticks | ADHD+M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.32 ADHD-M > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.25 ADHD-M > ADHD+M, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.61 | ADHD+M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.08 ADHD-M < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.14 ADHD+M > ADHD-M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.22 | ADHD+M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.33 ADHD-M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.13 ADHD+M > ADHD-M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.19 | n.a. |
20 ADHD-M (10/10) | 9.10 ± 3.0 | |||||||
20 NCs (10/10) | 10.2 ± 2.3 | |||||||
Schecklmann et al. (2011b) | 27 ADHD (7/20) | 12.67 ± 1.42 | Within-group design to test effects of MPH on olfactory function: 13 children with ADHD first tested on medication and then without; 14 children vice versa | Sniffin’ sticks | ADHD-M > NCs, ns ADHD+M > NCs, ns ADHD-M > ADHD+M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.15 | ADHD-M > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.79 ADHD+M > NCs, ns ADHD-M > ADHD+M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.73 | ADHD-M > NCs, ns ADHD+M > NCs, ns ADHD-M > ADHD+M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.15 | n.a. |
22 NCs (14/8) | 12.42 ± 1.58 | |||||||
Olfactory perception—adults
| ||||||||
Gansler et al. (1998) | 14 ADHD-HI (1/13) | 28.8 ± 11.4 | Not reported | UPSIT | n.a. | n.a. | ADHD-I < ADHD-HI, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.89 | n.a. |
16 ADHD-I (1/15) | 28.9 ± 13.4 | |||||||
Murphy et al. (2001) | 105 ADHD (26/79) | 21.1 ± 2.7 | 17 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | UPSIT | n.a. | n.a. | ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.39 Note: group differences reduced to non-significance when accounted for group differences in IQ | n.a. |
64 NCs (20/44) | 21.2 ± 2.4 | |||||||
Schecklmann et al. (2011a) | 29 ADHD (14/15) | 28.2 ± 4.5 | 6 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Sniffin’ sticks | ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.03 ADHD-C < ADHD-I, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.20 | ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.20 ADHD-C > ADHD-I, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.04 | ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.21 ADHD-C > ADHD-I, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.10 | n.a. |
29 NCs (14/15) | 27.8 ± 4.1 | |||||||
Weiland et al. (2011)b
| 12 ADHD (12/0) | 41 ± 8.5 | 7 patients with ADHD were on psychoactive medication (not further specified) at the assessment | Sniffin’ sticks | ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.39 ADHD-M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.20 ADHD+M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.54 ADHD-M < ADHD+M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.38 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
12 NCs (12/0) | 32 ± 7.9 | |||||||
Tactile perception—children/adolescents
| ||||||||
Parush et al. (1997) | 49 ADHD (0/49) | 7.7 ± 1.3 | Not reported | Homemade | n.a. | Texture discrimination: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.34 | n.a. | n.a. |
49 NCs (0/49) | 7.7 ± 1.4 | |||||||
Scherder et al. (2008) | 50 ADHD (13/37) | 9.7 ± 1.9 | 48-h abstinence before assessment | Homemade | n.a. | Temperature discrimination: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.50 Pain discrimination: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.59 | n.a. | n.a. |
35 NCs (19/16) | 9.4 ± 0.7 | |||||||
Tactile perception—adults
| ||||||||
Treister et al. (2015) | 30 ADHD (18/12) | 25.2 ± 2.5 | Within-group design to test effects of MPH on pain perception: 15 adults with ADHD first tested on medication and then without; 15 adults vice versa | Cold pressor test | Cold pain sensitivity: ADHD-M > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.30 ADHD+M > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.88 ADHD-M > ADHD+M, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.35 Cold pain tolerance: ADHD-M < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.91 ADHD+M < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.29 ADHD-M < ADHD+M, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.60 | n.a. | n.a. | Cold pain intensity: ADHD-M > NCs ns, Cohen’s d = 0.21 ADHD+M > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.15 ADHD-M > ADHD+M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.05 |
30 NCs (18/12) | 25.2 ± 2.5 | |||||||
Visual perception—children/adolescents
| ||||||||
Banaschewski et al. (2006) | 14 ADHD (1/13) | 10.5 ± 1.0 | 48-h abstinence before assessment | Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test | n.a. | Hue discrimination: Overall: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.00 Blue-yellow: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.06 Red-green: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.75 | n.a. | n.a. |
13 NCs (2/11) | 10.9 ± 0.7 | |||||||
Bartgis et al. (2009) | 54 ADHD (45/65; across entire sample) | 9.23 ± 1.93 (across entire sample) | 10 patients with ADHD and 1 NC participant were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Functional Acuity Contrast Test | Contrast sensitivity: ADHD-C < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d ≈ 0.63–0.73 ADHD-I < NCs, ns ADHD-C < ADHD-I, ns | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |
56 NCs | ||||||||
Kim et al. (2015) | 16 ADHD (3/13) | 13–18 | 7 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Pelli–Robson Contrast Sensitivity Test | Contrast sensitivity: Right eye: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.38 ADHD+M > ADHD-M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.47 Left eye: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.24 ADHD+M > ADHD-M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.42 Binocular vision: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.10 ADHD+M > ADHD-M, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.57 | n.a. | n.a | n.a. |
15 NCs (5/10) | 13–18 | |||||||
Roessner et al. (2008) | 14 ADHD (gender distribution not reported) | 10.4 ± 0.9 | 48-h abstinence before assessment | Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test | n.a. | Hue discrimination: Overall: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.22 Blue-yellow: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.23 Red-green: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.98 | n.a. | n.a. |
14 NCs (gender distribution not reported) | 10.7 ± 0.8 | |||||||
Visual perception—adults
| ||||||||
Kim et al. (2014a) | 30 ADHD (15/15) | 18–35 | 48-h abstinence before assessment | Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test | n.a. | Hue discrimination: Red: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.30 Blue: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.32 Green: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.11 Yellow: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.22 Time to complete task: ADHD > NCs, sig, Cohen’s d = 0.53 | n.a. | n.a. |
30 NCs (15/15) | Not reported | |||||||
Homemade | n.a. | Color saturation discrimination: Blue: ADHDf < NCf, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.92 Red: ADHDf < NCf, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.40 Contrast discrimination: ADHDf < NCf, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.72 | n.a. | n.a. | ||||
Kim et al. (2014b) | 30 ADHD (16/14) | 27.4 ± 7.1 | 19 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test | n.a. | Hue discrimination: Red: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.44 Blue: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.58 Green: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.51 Yellow: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.35 Time to complete task: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.69 | n.a. | n.a. |
30 NCs (15/15) | 25.4 ± 6.6 | |||||||
Stevens et al. (2012) | 77 ADHD (38/39) | 24.54 ± 4.33 | 26 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication; 24-h abstinence before assessment | Homemade | Contrast sensitivity for detecting digits: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.29 | |||
89 NCs (48/41) | 25.74 ± 3.66 |
Psychophysical studies (objective measurements)
Auditory perception
Gustatory perception
Olfactory perception
Tactile perception
Visual perception
Self- and informant reports (subjective measurements)
Authors | Participants: N (female/male) | Age: M ± SD or age range (in years) | Pharmacological treatment | Instrument (objective of instrument) | Type of report | Results | Conclusions/remarks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Children/adolescents
| |||||||
Bröring et al. (2008) | 47 ADHD (12/35) | 9.8 ± 1.11 | 33 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication | Touch Inventory for Elementary-School-Aged Children (assesses tactile defensiveness) | Informant report | ADHDf > ADHDm, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.04) ADHDf > NCf, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.29 | 17% of females and 3% of males with ADHD obtained scores indicating tactile defensiveness |
35 NC (19/16) | 9.5 ± 6.9 | ||||||
Cheung and Siu (2009) | 114 ADHD | 7.9 ± 1.4 | No current medication use | Chinese Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | Auditory processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.32 Visual processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.15 Taste/smell processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.65 Touch processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.86 | Children with ADHD showed a significant increase in sensory processing issues with increasing age, especially for auditory processing problems |
1840 NC (925/915) | 7.25 ± 2.8 | ||||||
Dunn and Bennett (2002) | 70 ADHD (9/61) | 3–15 | 52 patients with ADHD were treated with medication (not further specified) | Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | Auditory processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.27 Visual processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.56 Touch processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.04 Oral sensory processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.32 | Children with ADHD differed significantly from NCs in their perceptual abilities based on the Sensory Profile |
70 NCs (9/61) | 3–15 | ||||||
Engel-Yeger and Ziv-On (2011) | 29 ADHD (0/29) | 8.61 ± 0.62 | No current medication use | Short Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | No direct comparisons with NCs; but children with ADHD obtained lower scores on tactile sensitivity and auditory filtering compared normative data | Participation in social activities correlated with sensory processing difficulties, especially with auditory filtering |
29 NCs (0/29) | 8.55 ± 0.87 | ||||||
Lane et al. (2010) | 39 ADHD (11/28) | 8.46 ± 1.86 | Not reported | Sensory over-responsivity Inventory (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | No direct comparisons with NCs; participant were grouped according to sensory: 46% of children with ADHD obtained scores indicating sensory over-responsivity 20% of NCs obtained scores indicating sensory over-responsivity | Sensory over-responsivity was linked to anxiety |
45 NCs (24/21) | 8.65 ± 1.89 | ||||||
Mangeot et al. (2001) | 26 ADHD (8/18) | 8.3 ± 2.4 | 8 children were treated with stimulant medication (no intake of stimulant medication for at least 24 h prior to electrodermal assessment) | Short Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | Auditory filtering: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.75 Visual/auditory sensitivity: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.86 Tactile sensitivity: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.91 Taste/smell sensitivity: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.26 | Significant correlations between aggressive behavior and tactile sensitivity |
30 NCs (9/21) | 8.2 ± 2.0 | ||||||
Parush et al. (1997) | 49 ADHD (0/49) | 7.7 ± 1.3 | Not reported | Touch Inventory for Preschoolers (assesses tactile defensiveness) | Informant report | ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.67 | Based on the Touch Inventory 39.5% of children with ADHD and no NC children were classified as being “tactile defensive” |
49 NCs (0/49) | 7.7 ± 1.4 | ||||||
Scherder et al. (2008) | 50 ADHD (13/37) | 9.7 ± 1.9 | 48-h abstinence before assessment | Children’s Pain Inventory (assesses intensity and emotional aspects of recent experienced pain) | Self-report | Intensity chronic: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.36 Emotionality chronic: ADHD < NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.04 | Intensity and emotionality pain was reported to be difficult to objectify with somatosensory tests (c.f. Table 3) |
35 NCs (19/16) | 9.4 ± 0.7 | ||||||
Shimizu et al. (2014) | 37 ADHD (7/30) | 6–11 | The sample was recruited immediately after the diagnostic assessment, prior to the beginning of potential treatment with medications | Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing¸ lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | Auditory processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.72 Visual processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.09 Touch processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.12 Oral sensory processing: ADHD < NCs, ns,, Cohen’s d = 0.53 | Higher indicators of comorbidity were related to poorer sensory processing Significant correlations between symptoms of hyperactivity and touch processing Significant correlations between symptoms of inattention and auditory processing |
37 NCs (7/30) | 6–11 | ||||||
Yochman et al. (2004) | 48 ADHD (9/39) | 4.7 ± 0.76 | Not reported | Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | Auditory processing: ADHD < NCs, sig, Cohen’s d = 1.17 Visual processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.78 Touch processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.52 Oral sensory processing: ADHD < NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.74 | Significant correlations between parent- and teacher-reported symptoms of hyperactivity and subscales of the Sensory Profile |
46 NCs (9/37) | 4.8 ± 0.62 | ||||||
Yochman et al. (2007) | 49 ADHD (10/39) | 4.7 ± 7.0 | Not reported | Sensory Profile (assesses sensory processing; lower scores reflect undesirable behaviors) | Informant report | No scores provided; authors reported that scores of the ADHD group were significantly lower than the scores of NCs on all subscales; Cohen’s d was reported to range from 0.64 to 1.24 | Children with ADHD differed significantly from NCs in their perceptual abilities based on the Sensory Profile |
48 NCs (10/38) | 4.8 ± 6.0 | ||||||
Adults
| |||||||
Kim et al. (2014a) | 30 ADHD (15/15) | 18–35 | 48-h abstinence before assessment | Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ; problem scores on visual function in ordinary activities) | Self-report | Total score: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.24 | No significant differences between adults with ADHD and NCs based on the VAQ. The study, however, did find significant differences between groups on psychophysical measures (see Table 3) |
30 NCs (15/15) | Not reported | ||||||
Kim et al. (2014b) | 30 ADHD (16/14) | 27.4 ± 7.1 | 19 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication (24-h abstinence before of psychophysical assessment) | Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ; problem scores on visual function in ordinary activities) | Self-report | Color discrimination problem scores: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.27 Glare disability: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.49 Light/dark adaption problem scores: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.47 Acuity/spatial vision problem scores: ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.51 Depth perception problem scores: ADHD > NCs, sig, Cohen’s d = 0.57 Peripheral vision problem scores: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.63 Visual search problem scores: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.25 Visual processing speed problem scores: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.90 Vision and driving problem scores: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 0.93 | Significant correlations between ADHD symptoms and VAQ subscales |
30 NCs (15/15) | 25.4 ± 6.6 | Color Vision Screening Inventory (assesses color vision difficulties) | Self-report | ADHD > NCs, ns, Cohen’s d = 0.34 | |||
Micoulaud-Franchi et al. (2015a) | 24 ADHD (8/16) | 30.25 ± 7.92 | 8 patients with ADHD were treated with stimulant medication | The Sensory Gating Inventory (assesses problems scores on sensory experiences) | Self-report | Overall: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.37 Perceptual modulation: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.87 Over-inclusion: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.97 Distractibility: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 3.28 Fatigue-stress modulation: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.67 | Authors also assessed P50 suppression; a neurophysiological measure of sensory gating and found lower P50 suppression in ADHD compared to NCs, indicative of altered pre-attentive information processing in ADHD Significant correlation between P50 suppression and SGT scores Significant correlation between symptoms of inattentive and SGI scores |
24 NCs (8/16) | 36.54 ± 11.19 | ||||||
Micoulaud-Franchi et al. (2015b) | 70 ADHD (30/40) | 32.61 ± 10.07 | 11 patients were treated with stimulant medication | The Sensory Gating Inventory (assesses problem scores on sensory experiences) | Self-report | Overall: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.12 Perceptual modulation: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.77 Over-inclusion: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.60 Distractibility: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 2.59 Fatigue-stress modulation: ADHD > NCs, sig., Cohen’s d = 1.26 | Significant correlation between ADHD symptoms and distractibility dimension of the SGI |
70 NCs (27/43) | 32.28 ± 10.62 |